On Mon, racial (as opposed to partisan) gerrymandering returns to SCOTUS as the court hears the appeal of a decision finding that 11 Virginia house of delegates districts had been unconstitutionally drawn with too much consideration of race. #fairmaps 1/ brennancenter.org/legal-work/bet…

This is the second trip to SCOTUS for the Virginia racial gerrymandering case. #fairmaps 2/

Originally, the district court held that the 11 districts were *not* racial gerrymanders. But in March 2017, SCOTUS reversed that decision, holding that the district court had applied the wrong standard in deciding that race had not predominated. #fairmaps 3/

The case then went back to the district court, which held a second trial on whether the 11 Virginia districts were racial gerrymanders. This time, the court found that they were in a decision in June 2018. That opinion here: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…#fairmaps 5/

And here things get a bit interesting because the GOP-controlled VA House of Delegates and the speaker of the house, both of whom had intervened in the case, appealed to SCOTUS. #fairmaps 6/

But Virginia's Democratic attorney general Mark Herrring did not and instead asserted that the VA House and house speaker lacked standing (i.e. the legal power) to ask for SCOTUS review. His filing here: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…#fairmaps 7/

SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, but also asked for briefing on the standing question (whether VA Republicans have the right to be bringing the appeal) - so an added twist for Monday's argument (we'll see how much time the Justice actually spend on it). #fairmaps 8/

In the mean time, the Trump DOJ also is participating in the case - and agrees that VA Republicans lack standing. #fairmaps 9/

Though it goes on to argue that the district court didn't get the racial predominance analysis right this time either. #fairmaps 10/

To say the least, Monday will an interesting argument time wise, with VA Republicans getting 25 minutes, the Justice Dept. 10 minutes, Mark Herring 10 minutes, and 15 minutes for the plaintiffs in the case. #fairmaps 11/

Oh, and although SCOTUS sometimes puts the redrawing of maps on hold while it hears redistricting appeals, it declined to do so in this instance. #fairmaps 12/

As a result, the district court has already completed the remedial process and put in place a new map - which subject to how SCOTUS rules will be used in the 2019 elections. That map order here: brennancenter.org/sites/default/…#fairmaps 13/

A few more thoughts on the North Carolina partisan gerrymandering cases - or more specifically the facts. #fairmaps#ncpol 2/

Although some are skeptical about what the Supreme Court will do in the partisan gerrymandering cases it took today (and not without justification, especially given Justice Kennedy’s retirement), it’s important to remember how unusual the facts of NC are. #fairmaps#ncpol 3/

2018 was a busy and, in many ways, head spinning year on the redistricting front - with action in both state and federal court and at the ballot box. A look back. #fairmaps 1/

Things kicked off on January 5, when the special master in the racial gerrymandering challenge to North Carolina's legislative maps issued his recommendations on how the maps should be redrawn. brennancenter.org/sites/default/…#fairmaps 2/

Then, on Jan 9, while the court in the NC racial gerrymandering case was weighing recommendations for fixes to the legislative maps, a different federal court issued a ruling striking down NC's congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. brennancenter.org/sites/default/…#fairmaps 3/

Related threads

"[F]ederal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity," the Supreme Court rules in addressing a 9th Circuit cases that included the vote of Judge Reinhardt, who participated in the vote on the case, Yovino v. Rizo, but died before the vote was released. #SCOTUS

There's an excellent chance that tomorrow the Supreme Court will announce it will take up (again) the question whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Don't take an agreement to hear case as a sign the Court will police gerrymandering. It is actually the opposite. /1

A three-judge district court found that North Carolina's congressional districts were an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. These kinds of cases come up to #SCOTUS on "appeal" not a "cert. petition" and a ruling not to hear an appeal means the lower court got it right. /2

So it's almost impossible to believe that Court won't hear the North Carolina case. Last term the Court ducked the merits in the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case. But it is clear that the conservatives on the Court are skeptical federal courts can police gerrymandering. /3

OK, so here we go…tweet storm forthcoming regarding the 300+ opinion that still holds NC partisan gerrymandering as illegal, and that this time, the plaintiff’s have met the Gill burden of having standing as being in a district that is in question:

With standing, the issue of the partisan gerrymandering by NC Republicans is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, the 1st Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

On this Independence Day, when we celebrate the U.S. as a democracy and as we await a Scalia-like successor to Justice Kennedy to be nominated for #SCOTUS, some thoughts on how the Court could set the cause of voting rights back significantly in the years to come: /1

The first way that the Court can negatively affect voting rights is by holding that democracy-enhancing laws like the Voting Rights Act or campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional. The second way is by upholding state laws making it harder to register and vote. /2

In the first category, at the top of my list is that #SCOTUS with a fifth hard conservative on race could either hold that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is an unconstitutional racial classification or interpret it so weekly it dies death by 1,000 cuts /3